Any previous experience administrating? Where and in what manner: Colonial Marines mentor, administrated a WoW Private Server back in the WOTLK days. Administrator on Drymouth Gulch FO13.

How familiar are you with our ruleset: Very.

How long have you been playing TGMC and other servers in general: I've been fairly sporadic on TGMC because it was until recently very laggy for me. I've been playing SS13 since 2014 I think and played CM for most of that.

Have you been banned from any SS13 servers within the past 6 months? If so, what server, and for what reason: No.

Have you ever recieved a permanent ban from a server? If so, what server, and for what reason: Yes. CM for "ERP" (meme copypasta) during a round that supposedly had no rules. It was appealed and revoked within a month, and I am currently not banned. I'm banned on Paradise for making fun of furries. I said in OOC "The difference between Taj and Vulp is that one has a long place in SS13 and a lot of lore behind it. The other was made up by a fox fetishist." Insta permaban which I haven't bothered to appeal.

Why do you want to become an administrator: It sucks to see the server go down during times I could be administrating because nobody is an admin in my timezone.

Please fill out the following example scenarios, put your answer on a separate line from the question:

Spoiler:

1. A player shoots another player near the start of the round, but the MPs have already detained and brigged him.

PM, work out what happened. If it appears to be an accident (for example single shot and immediately apologetic) let it slide and allow it to resolve as an IC issue. If it appears more deliberate, give a verbal warning and note for future occurences. If there are previous notes about this sort of behaviour apply an appropriate ban based on the severity of the attack and frequency of notes. If a single note, a 3 hour ban seems appropriate.

2. You see a player walking around the ship without any clothes on, looking pretty lost.

Ask a mentor to get on it. If none is available, I'll PM them and walk them through the starting procedure for the game.

3. A player is getting aggressive in adminhelps and requesting to speak to a higher ranking staff member.

Players are not meant to adminshop. If an administrator has made a ruling that ruling is final and needs to be appealed. With that in mind, if it's a simple matter I'm happy to pass it off to a higher ranking staff member. If there isn't one available, I would inform the player that I'm the highest ranking staff member available and they have to deal with me, and try to calm them down. If they escalate, they get a 3 hour ban to cool off.

4. You notice a player with a name that doesn't fit our naming rules. The player is arguing that they've used the name for several years across multiple servers and no one has told them to change it before.

Doesn't matter. Rules are rules. Change it for the current round if able and order them to change it for the next round. If I'm on next round I'll check it personally, otherwise I'll note it for future admin interactions.

5. You see an MT running around in armor and carrying a rifle. The security level is green with no threat present.

IC issue. Keep an eye on it if he escalates it to an OOC issue. MTs shouldn't be deploying to go unga the dunga. If he deploys as if he was a standard marine, attacks someone with the rifle, or generally causes problems, intervene as necessary, and note for future behaviour. This probably isn't worth a ban unless it's excessively repeated.

6. The round is stagnating. There are 14 marines and 4 aliens. The marines won't leave the ship, and the aliens won't attack. What would you do, to "encourage" the sides to engage each other?

This is pretty broad.Given the marines are there to purge the xenos, it should be their responsibility to attack. I would send in a high command order for the marines to deploy, and send a subtle message to the aCO to get on with it. If that doesn't work, I'll give the aliens some powerful reinforcements and send the dropship down so they can have their fun. If it's clearly the fault of one side (marines are strong and hiding, or aliens are running from every minor engagement), I would help the side that is being more proactive.

7. A marine is running around disarming other marines and stealing their gear near the beginning of the round.

If there are MPs, I would notify them and try to resolve it as an IC issue. If not, sleep, ask him what he's doing and why, note for future behaviour, call for affected players to receive any special gear (specialist weapons, AP ammo, etc.), release. If there's already notes for this sort of thing, apply a three hour ban and call for affected players.

8. A marine has killed another marine. When you ask him why, he said it was because the other marine had punched him or said something rude towards him.

Improper escalation. Aheal the affected marine immediately. This merits a three hour ban immediately, but will be extended if there are notes for repeated behaviour. 9. There are minor racist comments going on IC. 9 of the 10 people are laughing and roleplaying but one player gets offended and adminhelps about it.

This is fine and an IC issue. Keep an eye on it to ensure that it doesn't spiral out of control. Minor name calling and offensive stereotyping is okay, but actively calling for harm to people of colour or different ethnicities is probably crossing a line. In that instance I would PM (or OOC whatever is the more appropriate response for the size of the group) and tell them to stop and that they've crossed a line.

10. A marine opens fire at several marines during briefing killing multiple people and logs off before you can message him.

Insta permaban, aheal all affected. If they genuinely (unlikely) didn't know what they were doing is wrong, they can come to the forums for an appeal.

11. You see a larva die near the frontlines. Upon further investigation, you see that they bursted in a safe place far away.

Ask them why they were so close to the frontlines as a larva. If they seem genuinely confused walk them through some tips for playing as a xeno. If they're a more experienced player, note for rushing as a larva. If there are already notes, jobban from xenos.

12. You see a xeno excessively saying phrases like "Ayyylmao", "Reeeee" and similar in the hivemind chat.

PM to please act in character in in game chat. Once or twice or as a joke in the early or late round is fine, but if it's all they're saying there's probably an issue.

13. A command staff player mentions during briefing that there might be xenos on the planet.

There might be. Who knows? The rules don't make mention of marine knowledge of the existence of aliens. I would say provided the command player doesn't make explicit mention of different castes, provide instructions about fighting specific problems, etc. it's probably okay.

14. A marine kills another marine on the Evac Pod to take the last spot, but has roleplayed the situation quite well.

In Character issue. If marines are evacuating and it's the last pod out, I could see that happening as a perfectly valid roleplay and in character reason. I would only intervene if the player requested it, and there were other pods available.

15. You see an SSD Squad Leader in the preparation room 1 hour into the round. When you check the logs, you notice he logged off near the beginning of the round.

Move to cryo, check notes for previous instances of SSDing as important roles. If there are, apply jobban to SL. If there aren't, note behaviour.

16. You see a member of the staff give wrong information in an adminhelp.

Use admin chat to tell the other member of staff the correct info and provide a link if available.

17. You see a member of the staff abusing his powers in-game or otherwise breaking the administrator rules.

Tell them to stop their shit. Gather screenshots, copy pasted chat logs, and if necessary game logs, and send it all to LAKiller.

18. You see a player bashing another server or player in OOC.

If it's paradise it's entirely warranted Tell them OOC to not be so harsh. If it's vicious stuff directed at a player (death threats, personal insults, etc.) apply a 3 hour ban to cool off.

Hello, thank you for showing interest and applying! I have some further questions, if you don't mind. Your bans and notes everywhere check out, thank you for being honest. Generally I would recommend you to get all bans appealed but I can see in this case why you would not want to since you don't plan on playing there.

Urytion wrote:3. A player is getting aggressive in adminhelps and requesting to speak to a higher ranking staff member.Players are not meant to adminshop. If an administrator has made a ruling that ruling is final and needs to be appealed. With that in mind, if it's a simple matter I'm happy to pass it off to a higher ranking staff member. If there isn't one available, I would inform the player that I'm the highest ranking staff member available and they have to deal with me, and try to calm them down. If they escalate, they get a 3 hour ban to cool off.

Why would you hand over a simple matter and not a complicated one? I'm curious about your thoughts here.

Urytion wrote:8. A marine has killed another marine. When you ask him why, he said it was because the other marine had punched him or said something rude towards him.Improper escalation. Aheal the affected marine immediately. This merits a three hour ban immediately, but will be extended if there are notes for repeated behaviour.

What if the marine was just genuinely new and unaware of the rules and seemed apologetic in the ahelp?

Urytion wrote:9. There are minor racist comments going on IC. 9 of the 10 people are laughing and roleplaying but one player gets offended and adminhelps about it.This is fine and an IC issue. Keep an eye on it to ensure that it doesn't spiral out of control. Minor name calling and offensive stereotyping is okay, but actively calling for harm to people of colour or different ethnicities is probably crossing a line. In that instance I would PM (or OOC whatever is the more appropriate response for the size of the group) and tell them to stop and that they've crossed a line.

Could you give examples which comments you would consider okay and which ones not okay?

Urytion wrote:13. A command staff player mentions during briefing that there might be xenos on the planet.There might be. Who knows? The rules don't make mention of marine knowledge of the existence of aliens. I would say provided the command player doesn't make explicit mention of different castes, provide instructions about fighting specific problems, etc. it's probably okay.

Could you quote rules that you think are relevant regarding this issue and what you can conclude from them?

And a more general, open-ended question:Under what conditions would you generally warn someone, apply a note, apply a ban? You mention three hour bans a lot, do you have a particular reason for that? I ask that because in general here, our aim is to change the player's behavior through our actions, and punishments should be applied when a player fails to upkeep their promise, not necessarily right after a mistake. We are not robocop enforcers looking at a table of crime - punishment, we are people, trying to change other people. Your mindset in your answers generally shows off a CM attitude (which is understandable since you were a mentor there), do you understand the differences between the rules and the staff here in general?

Last edited by LaKiller8 on Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Added the questions themselves so it's easier to read.

3. Basically to prevent adminshopping. And by "simple matter" I mean something along the lines of "This MP arrested me and all I did was break into req WTF?" One player is clearly in the wrong and being belligerent. In a more complicated scenario one administrator needs to make a call and have it applied. If a player is getting combative and the situation isn't very clear cut, it's also not very likely that they'll tell the whole truth in a conversation with a higher ranking administrator. If they disagree or feel that I made a wrong call and applied an action unfairly, there are forums to appeal on.

8. I'm not sure. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse to break them. More advanced games have automated bots that ban you for teamkilling. Is there any precedent for this? Generally before I start administrating I try to get an idea of what the general response is to situations by talking to other administrators and watching a game or two without taking ahelps myself. In a vacuum with none of that information, I would probably apply a short ban.

9. I would really rather not go into great detail. But racist namecalling and stereotyping is fine. Teasing a black character about fried chicken and watermelon and calling him slurs is probably okay. Telling a Jewish character that you wish his family hadn't survived the holocaust is probably going a tad far. But I would only intervene in that situation anyway if a player ahelped it.

13. "Rule 2: Do not use information gained outside of in character means." That's probably the only relevant rule section, and there's no mention of this situation in precedent. As I mentioned in my answer, a colony has gone dark. It's entirely reasonable to assume there has been an alien attack. It's probably on a list of possibilities alongside UPP and CLF. But if all briefing and planning takes place around the idea that there are DEFINITELY xenomorphs, and the commander goes into detail about how to fight them, what equipment to use, their likely location, etc. that's metagaming as that is out of game information.

___

Before I get started on a new server, I generally read through any existing precedent and notes, admin CoC if they have one, talk to other admins, etc. to try and get an idea of the approach to administration. I haven't had any negative interactions with staff here as of yet so I haven't been on the receiving end. As I currently sit, not being completely up to date with TGMC administration policy, here are my thoughts:

For applying notes, any formal warning should be noted. Anything less than that is probably fine. Administrators need to be aware of previous admin interactions with a player so they can respond appropriately to repeating behaviour.

For formal warnings, they're applied if a player breaks a rule, but doesn't really impact the round meaningfully in any way. Like a marine running around saying OOC in IC is annoying and against the rules, but probably isn't ruining anyone's round, so ping him, warn him for the behaviour, apply a note.

Bans should only be applied if a player is showing no remorse for their actions, their actions have caused another player to be removed from the round, or they have a history of repeated behaviour.

I make use of 3 hour bans because it is the smallest ban time that actually has an impact, and it seems to be a pretty well accepted standard because of the length of rounds. 3 hour bans have been the standard on both the servers I have been staff on. A three hour ban is really no great hurdle for a player and serves as a harsher warning more than as a "ban". They sit out, they chill, they generally realise that what they did wasn't right, and they can come back on in the next round, or tomorrow, or whatever works for them. Either that or they become very toxic and prove that you were right to remove them from the community. That being said, given the low population of this server and the faster rounds, maybe 1 hour would be a more appropriate "time out" style of ban. This is something I would try to work out prior to handling things personally.

The CM attitude has been the attitude across every server that I have staffed or had admin interactions on, except for Para where I have been told by their host that their policy is permaban and have them come to the forums. So it is a bit pervasive and underlies a lot of my thinking.

I hope that answers your questions clearly, but you know I'm around if you need more clarification.

Urytion wrote:8. I'm not sure. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse to break them. More advanced games have automated bots that ban you for teamkilling. Is there any precedent for this? Generally before I start administrating I try to get an idea of what the general response is to situations by talking to other administrators and watching a game or two without taking ahelps myself. In a vacuum with none of that information, I would probably apply a short ban.

In this case, would you say that intent matters? Also in general, whenever someone breaks a rule.

Urytion wrote:9. I would really rather not go into great detail. But racist namecalling and stereotyping is fine. Teasing a black character about fried chicken and watermelon and calling him slurs is probably okay. Telling a Jewish character that you wish his family hadn't survived the holocaust is probably going a tad far. But I would only intervene in that situation anyway if a player ahelped it.

There has been some debate within the team regarding bigotry, and how much we are willing to allow or disallow. How would you feel if the policy you'd have to apply would be less or more tolerant than what you describe? Also, do you have a personal preference?

Urytion wrote:8. I'm not sure. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse to break them. More advanced games have automated bots that ban you for teamkilling. Is there any precedent for this? Generally before I start administrating I try to get an idea of what the general response is to situations by talking to other administrators and watching a game or two without taking ahelps myself. In a vacuum with none of that information, I would probably apply a short ban.

In this case, would you say that intent matters? Also in general, whenever someone breaks a rule.

The original question seems to suggest a clear and deliberate intent, so I'd say that's a problem. Also in this particular instance, without admin intervention, a player could have been removed from the game.

But in most cases, yes, I would say intent matters. Being apologetic helps. Not knowing the rules isn't an excuse to break them, but generally I'd be a bit more lenient on a new player with no notes.

Rohesie wrote:

Urytion wrote:9. I would really rather not go into great detail. But racist namecalling and stereotyping is fine. Teasing a black character about fried chicken and watermelon and calling him slurs is probably okay. Telling a Jewish character that you wish his family hadn't survived the holocaust is probably going a tad far. But I would only intervene in that situation anyway if a player ahelped it.

There has been some debate within the team regarding bigotry, and how much we are willing to allow or disallow. How would you feel if the policy you'd have to apply would be less or more tolerant than what you describe? Also, do you have a personal preference?

I would be fine with a policy swinging either way of my description. This is the standard that I believe should be upheld in a public game that can be accessed by anyone, not necessarily how I view racial jokes and roleplay across the board. As long as IC is IC and it doesn't become apparent that someone is bringing that OOC racial biases into IC, it shouldn't be an issue.

Urytion wrote:3. Basically to prevent adminshopping. And by "simple matter" I mean something along the lines of "This MP arrested me and all I did was break into req WTF?" One player is clearly in the wrong and being belligerent. In a more complicated scenario one administrator needs to make a call and have it applied. If a player is getting combative and the situation isn't very clear cut, it's also not very likely that they'll tell the whole truth in a conversation with a higher ranking administrator. If they disagree or feel that I made a wrong call and applied an action unfairly, there are forums to appeal on.

What I was mostly going for, it it's a simple matter then you should especially handle it yourself. Rule 6 applies in this context unless you excersise Rule 0 over it, which should only be done in very specific scenarios regarding this matter specifically.

Urytion wrote:8. I'm not sure. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse to break them. More advanced games have automated bots that ban you for teamkilling. Is there any precedent for this? Generally before I start administrating I try to get an idea of what the general response is to situations by talking to other administrators and watching a game or two without taking ahelps myself. In a vacuum with none of that information, I would probably apply a short ban.

There are admin guidelines you will get access to if you are accepted, so currently it is a little bit of a Catch-22. It's for a good reason though, there is a lot of very valuable information on how to deal with all kinds of situations and players having access to those might only lead to even more rule-lawyering than usual. But don't worry, it's accounted for in applications for people to not have access to those. What we judge is the mindset that you answer the questions with rather than going by a strict correct versus incorrect answer. During your candidate period you will get access to everything and will be taught the tools themselves.

Urytion wrote:13. "Rule 2: Do not use information gained outside of in character means." That's probably the only relevant rule section, and there's no mention of this situation in precedent. As I mentioned in my answer, a colony has gone dark. It's entirely reasonable to assume there has been an alien attack. It's probably on a list of possibilities alongside UPP and CLF. But if all briefing and planning takes place around the idea that there are DEFINITELY xenomorphs, and the commander goes into detail about how to fight them, what equipment to use, their likely location, etc. that's metagaming as that is out of game information.

Rule 2 is very relevant here, especially this portion: ,,Characters are otherwise allowed to know everything about ingame mechanics or antagonists." What this means in practice is that until we implement a HvH or another antagonist faction into Distress, players know that the thing they are fighting are the xenomorphs, therefore it's okay to make specific plans and talk about how to best defeat them in general. Right now the only way for them to not fight xenos is an event, which they will also know is happening.

Urytion wrote:Before I get started on a new server, I generally read through any existing precedent and notes, admin CoC if they have one, talk to other admins, etc. to try and get an idea of the approach to administration. I haven't had any negative interactions with staff here as of yet so I haven't been on the receiving end. As I currently sit, not being completely up to date with TGMC administration policy, here are my thoughts:

For applying notes, any formal warning should be noted. Anything less than that is probably fine. Administrators need to be aware of previous admin interactions with a player so they can respond appropriately to repeating behaviour.

For formal warnings, they're applied if a player breaks a rule, but doesn't really impact the round meaningfully in any way. Like a marine running around saying OOC in IC is annoying and against the rules, but probably isn't ruining anyone's round, so ping him, warn him for the behaviour, apply a note.

Bans should only be applied if a player is showing no remorse for their actions, their actions have caused another player to be removed from the round, or they have a history of repeated behaviour.

I make use of 3 hour bans because it is the smallest ban time that actually has an impact, and it seems to be a pretty well accepted standard because of the length of rounds. 3 hour bans have been the standard on both the servers I have been staff on. A three hour ban is really no great hurdle for a player and serves as a harsher warning more than as a "ban". They sit out, they chill, they generally realise that what they did wasn't right, and they can come back on in the next round, or tomorrow, or whatever works for them. Either that or they become very toxic and prove that you were right to remove them from the community. That being said, given the low population of this server and the faster rounds, maybe 1 hour would be a more appropriate "time out" style of ban. This is something I would try to work out prior to handling things personally.

The CM attitude has been the attitude across every server that I have staffed or had admin interactions on, except for Para where I have been told by their host that their policy is permaban and have them come to the forums. So it is a bit pervasive and underlies a lot of my thinking.

I hope that answers your questions clearly, but you know I'm around if you need more clarification.

Thank you for going in detail, I like your answer. What I meant was that generally we are considered a little "lighter" on punishments compared to most other staff teams since the intent of the player matters immensely here.

I think you've satisfied for me what could be solved through this kind of quiz-questions, so I'll share my mind: you are an experienced admin, you give solid answers and have the potential to be a really good admin. Your staffing for Drymouth was very much praised.

The are two issues, though. One is that sometimes you seem to lose your temper, not care, of for some reason be somewhat abrasive/toxic from my observations, if you let me use that word somewhat liberally. I tend to favor people I see as more chill, or less likely to offend others, but I don't think this is something we can't work out with time. Just a point I'd like you to consider. The other is your presence in our server and discord not being the most active one as of late. Granted we've been testing for limited periods, and your timezone is less usual.

That said, how interested are you in the server and project? That's what the answer to the application boils down to, really. If you have genuine interest then you have my support, because you do have the potential to contribute a lot, and we can probably polish any rough edges on the go.

Rohesie wrote:I think you've satisfied for me what could be solved through this kind of quiz-questions, so I'll share my mind: you are an experienced admin, you give solid answers and have the potential to be a really good admin. Your staffing for Drymouth was very much praised.

The are two issues, though. One is that sometimes you seem to lose your temper, not care, of for some reason be somewhat abrasive/toxic from my observations, if you let me use that word somewhat liberally. I tend to favor people I see as more chill, or less likely to offend others, but I don't think this is something we can't work out with time. Just a point I'd like you to consider. The other is your presence in our server and discord not being the most active one as of late. Granted we've been testing for limited periods, and your timezone is less usual.

That said, how interested are you in the server and project? That's what the answer to the application boils down to, really. If you have genuine interest then you have my support, because you do have the potential to contribute a lot, and we can probably polish any rough edges on the go.

I'm definitely interested in the server and project. But as you mentioned, my timezone is a bit unusual. For example, yesterday's test was at 5:30 in the morning, and I worked late on Friday night (I am a weddings special effects guy, that tends to run late), so I didn't wake up until 10ish. I can usually catch the last couple rounds of a test, but I'll be more active when the server becomes more live. Also for Discord, I lurk on most discords in general. But if a more active approach is expected I'll step that up.

Time zone is not an issue, if anything it's better that you are able to cover odd hours for when we go 24/7.We'll review the application with the team, everyone there having a vote, but mine should be positive unless something big changes.